Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
720 F.2d 1008 · 1983
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 14 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (2005), Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co. (1994)
53 federal appellate · 14 district · 8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Rideout v. United States · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“opposition clause protection will be accorded whenever the [employee's] opposition is based on a 'reasonable belief' that the employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... If discharge or other disciplinary sanctions may be imposed based simply on”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even though opposition to an unlawful employment practice is protected, such protection is not absolute. There may arise instances where the employee’s conduct in protest of an unlawful employment practice so interferes with the performance of his job that it renders him ineffective in the position for which he was employed. In such a case, his conduct, or form of opposition, is not covered by § 704(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.